>This kind of "well eksuallyyyy" argument

It's not, when the article is specifically arguing that the insider trading is bad beyond just corruption, and barely touches corruption. You don't get to tack on a weak claim on top of a strong claim, and then when the weak claim gets pushback fall back to the strong claim and say everything's fine because you're directionally correct, or claim the person pushing back is wrong because they're directionally incorrect.

You keep saying this, when it is counter to the actual text of the article.

> Yet aside from the raw corruption, these incidents also raise a larger question....What broader damage does this kind of unchecked insider trading do?

That is what the article is about. It's saying that this is corruption, and discussing what the effect of this corruption is. "Beyond just corruption" is wholly your invention. I don't even know what it would mean?

Corruption is the cause. The article discusses the resulting effect.